Related Content

The debate is over the Maryland Court of Appeals' decision that pit bulls are inherently dangerous.

In May, animal advocates gathered at Lawyers Mall in Annapolis, shouting down any position that determined pit bulls were exceptionally harmful. At the Inner Harbor, there was a show of defiance against the ruling as opponents held an Adopt A Pit Bull Day.

A task force of lawmakers is focusing on the court ruling, complaints from critics and concerns of others as it determines what to recommend. Delegate Benjamin Kramer, D-Montgomery County, is asking for a definition when it comes to the ruling.

"I have looked through it and I could not find a definition for a pit bull and, quite frankly, I have tried online to come to a conclusion as to what is a pit bull, much less a crossbred pit bull," Kramer said.

Dog advocates said they worry legislators will create a breed-specific law that they believe will be ineffective. They also worry about dog owners being forced from their homes by landlords who are worried about dog bites and liability.

"I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, Maryland is one of the states where, if you're teasing the dog or if it's protecting its pups, that it can't be an inherently dangerous animal if it occurs at that time," said Delegate Michael Smigiel, R-Upper Eastern Shore.

Task force members are also wondering if a change in laws concerning dogs would affect insurance laws.

"If Maryland were to join the majority of sister states and adopt a strict liability rule for dog bites in general -- not breed specific -- would there be any change required to our insurance statutes?" said state Sen. Brian Frosh, D-Montgomery County.